Apparently this guy (as a defense lawyer) will "rip apart" children who have been victims of child rape if they have to take the witness stand. This is his rationale for opposing mandatory sentencing of 25 years for sex offenders, for the simple fact that he is a defense lawyer who has to defend the slimy human beings that commit such crimes. In creating a defense, I guess slamming a kid who has no understanding of how defense lawyers tear down a victim's credibility to build a defense case is his way of defending these child rapists. Could defense lawyers find some other sort of evidence, rather than trying to find holes in a 7-year-old's story about a rape? Nope, apparently the extent of his legal savvy is to interrogate young victims of rape and somehow trick them into providing some sort of story incoherence that will somehow support a defense of a rapist.

Don't you think a child that was put through such a traumatic experience would sleep much better knowing the "bad man" was in jail for 25 years and has no chance of hurting him or her again? I think that is a little more peace of mind than maybe having to relive some of the details of the rape in describing what happened in a courtroom. Liberal judges would have us believe that being a child rapist is a "disease", and allowing them out of jail as early as THREE MONTHS (see judge Edward Cashman, CLICK HERE) after being incarcerated for raping a child is an OK sentence. Over my dead body. Raping a child is not an "affliction," it's a crime.

Sunday, June 22, 2008

While surfing around and doing random Facebook clicking, I stumbled upon the page for the S.A.A.F.E. organization on the SDSU campus. S.A.A.F.E. stands for Skeptics, Agnostics, Atheists, Freethinkers, and Empiricists. Basically a group where all these kinds of "enlightened" people get together and pat eachothers' backs, as their description clearly shows:

Want to meet other NON-RELIGIOUS and FREETHINKING SDSU students? We need your ideas and interest!

Due to harassment generated by those opposed to free thought, we've been forced to make this a "closed group." To join, simply send an email to one of the administrators listed on the right side of this page and ask to be approved.

If you have a movie/discussion topic/event or gathering idea that promotes the objectives of SAAFE, please post it on the wall or message the group.

If you would like to receive our regular group emails covering SAAFE's activities, we ask you to attend our weekly meeting and add your name our list.

SAAFE meets every Tuesday evening at 8pm in Rotunda G on the campus of South Dakota State University--come join the fight against the Religious Reich!

Note: Admins will use the right to delete any posts/discussion threads at any time; after all, that's what admins do.

We want to be a place to share information and knowledge, but we can't do it without your support, cooperation, and input!

What a delightful group description. "Due to harassment generated by those opposed to free thought, we have to make this a closed group." Okay, so this is a Facebook group. The only thing harassment could have amounted to would be wall posts on the group opposing their viewpoints. Oh my. The best part is "by those opposed to free thought". Funny, I thought those for free thought might want to include all opinions in the debates of the world, not closing down group membership and shunning people from the discussion. "Fight the Religious Reich." Like we've ever done anything to them short of proposing some sort of moral base. Like maybe not cut babies apart and extract them for growing new livers for people? Like we're comparable to Nazis for thinking there MAY be something wrong with that?"Admins have the right to delete posts and discussion feeds, because that's what Admins do." Are you kidding me? So basically they see something they don't like or someone makes a good point against them and they can delete it. Great for debate and finding the best solution for society by not listening to other viewpoints. Way to be free thinking, if that's what you call it.

Just think if I played by those same rules. A hypothetical, if you will:

"Okay, nobody can read my site except for those that agree with me. Should one of you post a comment on my blog that I do not agree with or take any amount of offense to, that post will be promptly deleted. After all, I'm an administrator, and that's what I do (just to make sure there's a good amount of "varied" opinion and free thinking, I will exclude those who deviate from accepted topics.)

Sorry guys, I'm back now. :-) That previous paragraph was to be read with a heavy amount of sarcasm.

Everyone is welcome to post anything at any time and about anything from any viewpoint on my blog. Or would that imply that I am one of those "opposed to free thought?" Well, if allowing all viewpoints falls under that catagory, that I guess I am opposed to free thought.

Saturday, June 21, 2008

It's been a while since I posted last. For all my faithful readers, I am still here. This blog was a part of one of my classes, which I completed (with an A, mind you) in May. I want to continue this blog, because I love politics and think it's important to get the conservative voice out there. I won't be having the question of the week per se, as that was kind of a requirement for the class, unless I get a bunch more readers that might have a question that they would like me to post about, then I will post reader questions under the heading of "Question of the Week." Since this is no longer for class (and a grade) I will try to have a lot more fun with it and hope you all comment and make this a fun and informative new-media place.